Staff Reports
Amaryllis Fox Kennedy — a departing senior intelligence official and former undercover CIA officer — publicly tore into a Washington Post report that claimed she left her White House post because she disagreed with President Trump’s military moves in the Middle East. She called the story “hogwash” and made it clear she supports President Trump, will continue serving on presidential advisory boards, and is leaving the job for family and financial reasons. The short version: the paper tried to write a scandal where none exists, and she called them out.
Kennedy slams Washington Post report as “hogwash”
The Washington Post published a piece relying on anonymous sourcing that suggested Ms. Kennedy resigned over policy fights about Iran. Kennedy fired back on social media, saying the report was flat-out wrong. She confirmed she is stepping down to return to the private sector to keep her family “financially on track,” with a daughter entering college and younger children to support. She also made clear she will remain close to the administration, serving on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and the Intelligence Oversight Board.
Why anonymous sources and sloppy narratives matter
This isn’t just a squabble about who’s right. When major outlets use unnamed sources to suggest a rift inside the national security team, it creates confusion and can weaken confidence in our leadership. The paper had access to the email she sent to colleagues — an email that praised President Trump — yet still ran a story that painted her departure as a protest. That mismatch should make readers ask why an outlet would push a narrative that doesn’t line up with the facts in hand.
Her stance on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz
Kennedy didn’t shrink from the tough issues. She defended the administration’s posture toward Iran, argued that allowing Iran to enrich uranium undermines stable peace, and called the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz “masterful.” She contrasted this approach with past wars she says had far worse human cost. In other words, she supports strong, focused pressure rather than open-ended military campaigns — and she thinks President Trump’s tactics save lives compared with the interventions favored by previous leaders and, apparently, cheered on by some media outlets.
At the end of the day, Kennedy’s quick and public rebuttal should remind us that readers must judge reporting by the strength of evidence, not by how dramatic a claim sounds. If a national security official publicly declares loyalty, continues to take on advisory roles, and explains she’s stepping away for family reasons, the simplest explanation is often the truest. The media would do well to stop trying to manufacture fractures inside the administration and start reporting facts instead.
